If you have any sort of branching then you are not doing CI, you are doing promiscuous integration but not continuous integration.
Do you mean it's better to work on master and/or a monorepo approach?
master
yes, absolutely.
I’m aware of this ideology but I think that branching has too many practical and psychological benefits. :)
I’d be curious to hear how it works in practice with a specific project and team.
If you merge multiple times per day, it implies that average lifetime of branches is less than a day, and that’s as continuous as you can do imo.
Branching generates a lot of integrational and operational cost to the software development process.
In there I explained my point of view.
Are you sure you want to hide this comment? It will become hidden in your post, but will still be visible via the comment's permalink.
Hide child comments as well
Confirm
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
If you have any sort of branching then you are not doing CI, you are doing promiscuous integration but not continuous integration.
Do you mean it's better to work on
masterand/or a monorepo approach?yes, absolutely.
I’m aware of this ideology but I think that branching has too many practical and psychological benefits. :)
I’d be curious to hear how it works in practice with a specific project and team.
If you merge multiple times per day, it implies that average lifetime of branches is less than a day, and that’s as continuous as you can do imo.
Branching generates a lot of integrational and operational cost to the software development process.
why branching on git is wrong
Adrián Norte ・ Oct 27 '18 ・ 1 min read
In there I explained my point of view.